[ajross]

And again, if you want to talk about the constitution I'm all for it. But just don't do that in the context of "you know, maybe this guy is innocent". That's silly and counterproductive.

The practical thing happening here is that the prosecution almost certainly could build a case on the evidence they have, but in practice they don't have to because the judge is willing to hold the guy in jail on procedural grounds.

Again, I'm saying there is a good argument that this was a bad decision and that the All Writs Act shouldn't be construed to allow this. But that's an academic point. In the real world, chances are very near zero that there is any "injustice" going on in this particular case.

[theWatcher37]

Then the government should do its freaking job and host a trial. This isn't a game.

[ajross]

Not a "game", maybe, but it's still zero sum. Which prosecution specifically do you want to skip so that the system can go through the motions to "do its freaking job" and get a conviction?

Once more: this was a practical decision by prosecutors to deliver as much justice as they could given limited resources. It seems all but certain (yes, in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense) that there is no objective injustice involved in holding this guy.

[baddox]

I don't think many people on this thread would have a problem with the case if the guy had gone in trial for possessing child pornography and had been convicted.